Saturday, October 3, 2009

Observer or Observed?

My husband loves the interface of science and religion, but not to further evolution's "worldview", but faith's. He veiws science as limited, because reason cannot be absolutized.

This past week, he presented some of the material, re-organized, about "Faith and Society", a Templeton course prize winner a number of years ago.

The point he made that I find interesting in light of paternalistic views on society and governing, is on Quantum theory. He pointed out that other theories in physics are deterministic; Newtonian, Relativity, etc. But, Quantum theory is premised on probabilities. There is no determinant future and individuals in this view are potentialities. (I wonder if "free market economies" could also be understood in a "quantum" way"?)

But, one statement that he has made in the past and made this day, was that when we observe something, it changes the observed/observer. The intersubjectivity I find interesting, when we talk about "forming" individuals, because the very notion of "formation" is a type of observation, itself. One must "know" or "evalutate" another's life and determine what needs "change" and then seek to "enforce" or "promote" these values, goals, or "ideas".

Choice is of ultimate importance to quatum theory, because it is only in choice that "Schrodinger's cat" changes. Those that try to determine another's choice, are themselves surprised to find how complex individual's choices, wills, values can be.

I wonder what psychologists think about these probabilities and the changes that happen becasuse of observation of another person, since this is the way pscyhological and sociological science is done?

No comments: